Skip to main content

The Name on the Dotted Line

By

PetitionsThis is posted on the White House’s We the People website, which allows we the people to create polls and collect signatures to show support or opposition to various things involving the federal government:

This petition is a response to the "End taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactors" petition.

Due to the manufactured controversy that is the nuclear reactor meltdown in Fukushima, Japan, perpetuated by a scientifically illiterate news media, the public is unnecessarily hostile to nuclear power as an energy source.

To date nobody has died from the accident and Fukushima, and nuclear power has the lowest per Terra-watt hour death toll of any energy source known to man:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

The Obama administration should take better strides to educate the public regarding this important energy source.

I’m not sure I agree with the much of the language here or even agree that the Obama administration has done a crummy job making the point that nuclear energy is key to the U.S. energy future. Poll numbers on nuclear energy took a hit after the Fukushima accident, certainly, but have largely recovered.

But that’s not the point, is it? You can decide for yourself if you think the petition is worth your signature. After all, if you want to create an alternate petition for others to sign, you can. 

You have to sign up for a free account on the site to sign the petition – and any number of others that are there – or create your own. The Next Big Future site describes itself as covering “science and technology having high potential for disruption and analysis of plans, policies and technology to enable radical improvements.” I assume it means radical improvements to our lives – in any event, a review of its posts show that it isn’t hauling a lot of ideological freight and covers a large number of topics.

As the poll description above indicates, the site is pugnaciously in favor of nuclear energy and participates in the Carnival of Nuclear Energy NNN hosted this week. Other than that, NEI has no affiliation with The Next Big Future, though it’s always nice to spotlight one of our blog roll friends.

If you want to know about the poll to which this one is a response, well, you’re on your own, buster.

The picture comes from a Rolling Thunder Down Home Democracy Tour event in North Carolina. I have no brief on the group – nice photo, though.

Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Does NEI believe that the Fukushima nuclear accident is a "manufactured controversy"?
September 30, 2011 at 11:30 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more